tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post4535233013341853613..comments2015-08-02T13:37:51.227-05:00Comments on Althouse: And you, President Obama, a law professor!Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger200125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-54088366509587483282010-01-25T16:14:46.020-06:002010-01-25T16:14:46.020-06:00I keep hearing Cartman in my head saying &quot;Res...I keep hearing Cartman in my head saying &quot;Respect mah Author-it-tay!&quot;<br /><br />Our Government has become South Park.Georgfelishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03550333227450728733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-39322910039257727592010-01-24T03:57:20.745-06:002010-01-24T03:57:20.745-06:00Mr. Dooley said:
I strongly suggest there is a re...Mr. Dooley said:<br /><br />I strongly suggest there is a real benefit to reading the (opposition&#39;s ) playbook, if you want to follow how this is going to be played out. I know, I know, it took him the better part of six years to write it, so it wasn&#39;t published until well into the 1920&#39;s. Still, there are several editions out there, most in translation (Mannheim&#39;s is my favorite) and it&#39;s even &quot;free for the reading of it&quot; on Kindle. Get your copy today,and &quot;read it with a ruler&quot; before the White House gets its ban in place and packs the court!!! <br /><br />Worked in my century, surely could work in yours. <br /><br />Mr. DooleyAnne Abler &http://www.blogger.com/profile/06825552730917834452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-69256725784011945382010-01-23T22:21:40.172-06:002010-01-23T22:21:40.172-06:00Richard Dolan (1/22 @11:48)
You’re spot on.
I ag...Richard Dolan (1/22 @11:48)<br /><br />You’re spot on.<br /><br />I agree with Prof A as to how she thinks most Con-law Profs today would interpret a decision of a conservative court, that is, as Obama (but not a seasoned pol) did about this one.<br /><br />As for the general public, it is uneducated or undereducated about the Constitution. (As are law school grads who just read the cases &amp; take notes from the Orthodox Liberal Prof.) All they see is that it is the subject of endless nit picking, angels on the head of a pin, Talmudic disputations. Thus, they are susceptible to the inevitable encroachments of the judicial power-seekers &amp; the politicians who enjoy their decisions.<br /><br />I would argue that &quot;Independence&quot; of the Judiciary means simply that it is a co-equal branch of government. <br /><br />That &quot;Independence&quot; does not mean that its foolish pronouncements, such as<br /> <br /><i>-Dred Scott, <br />-No Income Tax, <br />-Segregation in Public Accommodations = OK, or <br />-the WW II Japanese imprison decisions, </i><br /><br />may never be questioned, much less vitiated by another branch of the tranche or by a Constitutional amendment.<br /><br />So when Conservatives in recent history have questioned SCOTUS&#39; activism and argued for congressional action to reign it in or for a Constitutional Amendment to overturn/modify/clarify a decision, many Liberals thoughtlessly accused such Conservatives of attacking the &quot;independence&quot; of the judiciary or, worse, suggested that conservatives were advocating that its decisions do not have to be &quot;obeyed&quot;. The fact that the four decisions referred to above, are now generally thought of as wrong &amp; that three were overturned, one by the Civil War, no less &amp; one “fixed” by reparations? Nevermind! <br /><br />Now, many Liberals when it comes to this decision are questioning SCOTUS&#39; activism and arguing for congressional action to reign it in.<br /><br />And, since the ends do not justify the means, even if independent thinkers &amp; serious students of the Constitution approve of the result of a particular SCOTUS decision, they may &amp; should correct thoughtless rigid people who say that a SCOTUS decision like this &amp; the reasoning behind it are fixed &amp; unchangeable. <br /><br />And Prof A, with all due respect, when you claim that <br /><br /><i>“Non-lawprof Americans tend to think that the Constitution really means something and that that the Supreme Court has a special role and expertise in saying what it means, that a 5-4 decision is something more than just a vote on what 9 power-wielders would like the law to be”</i>, <br /><br />I suggest, er, yes, except when the 5-4 decision is obviously nothing more than just a vote on what 9 power-wielders would like the law to be.<br /><br />And, yes, I too would expect a politician to tend to the voters&#39; feelings. As you note: <br /><br /><i>”Obama should have said that he would like to explore ways to write a new statute that will respect the rights the Court has articulated and still serve the good and proper goals that the defective statute was meant to serve. With some sugar about how rights are important.”</i>From Inwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00555545963289759013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-31584099689436275602010-01-23T22:21:01.259-06:002010-01-23T22:21:01.259-06:00storkdoc asked: In what alternate universe does he...storkdoc asked: <i>In what alternate universe does he think the appropriate response to the Supreme court saying, &quot;you can&#39;t do x&quot;, is to propose a law that does x ?</i><br /><br />That would be the same universe in which we find those opposed to Roe still proposing laws to chip away at Roe. <br /><br />There was all sorts of noise after Kelo about using law to remedy the issue.peter hohhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06916196998855947137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-15217429794590713862010-01-23T22:19:04.396-06:002010-01-23T22:19:04.396-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.From Inwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00555545963289759013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-23088982602896442482010-01-23T22:16:05.030-06:002010-01-23T22:16:05.030-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.From Inwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00555545963289759013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-3122029820919098252010-01-23T19:36:34.222-06:002010-01-23T19:36:34.222-06:00&quot;Ann, Are you suggesting that there should be...&quot;Ann, Are you suggesting that there should be limits on judicial review -- that the court&#39;s decision could be over-ridden or modified by Congress or the Executive? Andrew Jackson certainly felt that way. Obama seems to agree. Do you?&quot;<br /><br />Well, there are limits on judicial review. There has to be a real case or controversy to present the legal question for example. But I don&#39;t think the other branches can change the Supreme Court&#39;s interpretation of constitutional law. However, they might be able write a new statute that complies with the constitutional law and is aimed at the same problem as the statute that was stricken down. They can also make statutes that protect rights *more* than the Constitution does (which isn&#39;t the issue here). They can also decline to pass statutes that violate their idea of what the Constitution means even though the Court has said the Constitution isn&#39;t that restrictive (which is the Andrew Jackson point). They can also try to amend the Constitution (totally impossible as a practical matter in this case), and they can pay attention to who gets on the Court in the future. There&#39;s also impeachment and cutting back the jurisdiction of the federal courts (which Congress has the power to do, but doesn&#39;t look too good politically).Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-80967915046847977742010-01-23T19:31:01.735-06:002010-01-23T19:31:01.735-06:00Why would a law professor oppose a Supreme Court d...<i>Why would a law professor oppose a Supreme Court decision on a matter of constitutional law and not respect the authority of the Court and honor our system of separation of powers.</i><br /><br />Because opposing a Supreme Court decision does not necessarily mean he does not respect its authority or does not honor the system of separation of power. On the contrary, he respects them and honors them and seeks to change them using his own separated power, and see then how far he can get with that. I suppose. <br /><br /><b>Now get off his back already!</b> <br /><br />For the record, I don&#39;t see why the decision demands a forceful response and why the public interest requires one. <br /><br />Oh. This reminds me; that adage about ostriches sticking their head in the sand bugs me because zoology informs us they don&#39;t do that, but still, the adage persists to characterize political opponents. Last night I got an idea that was stimulated by such a political ad, to draw an ostrich with a post hole digger, bummed out because its wings couldn&#39;t get the tool to work since it was made for humans. But now that I told you, it&#39;s hardly worth drawing.Chip Ahoyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12597726289890879627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-19012037281286524092010-01-23T17:52:02.752-06:002010-01-23T17:52:02.752-06:00Ann, Are you suggesting that there should be limit...Ann, Are you suggesting that there should be limits on judicial review -- that the court&#39;s decision could be over-ridden or modified by Congress or the Executive? Andrew Jackson certainly felt that way. Obama seems to agree. Do you?D. B. Lighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05663484917515894917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-12046590359359551152010-01-23T16:54:53.927-06:002010-01-23T16:54:53.927-06:00Alpha: &quot;They reached out to grab this case......Alpha: &quot;They reached out to grab this case...&quot;<br /><br />That&#39;s how they get all their cases. It&#39;s called certiorari.Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-25540369174727662592010-01-23T16:53:12.031-06:002010-01-23T16:53:12.031-06:00Obama may have been a &#39;senior lecturer&#39; at...Obama may have been a &#39;senior lecturer&#39; at the University of Chicago Law School but he is by no means a &#39;constitutional scholar&#39; as some have made him out to be.<br /><br />He taught a Voting Rights class about the disenfranchisement of blacks and districting of same; and a class on Due Process and Equal Protection as it pertains to blacks and racism. You can look up his past exams online, and his sample answers. (They seem pretty childishly simple to me, and I&#39;m not even in the legal profession.)<br /><br />Simply put, he taught racism law, history of racism law, and how to use racism law. That&#39;s it, that&#39;s all.luaghahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17771831351721057474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-72015849561268122272010-01-23T16:52:52.943-06:002010-01-23T16:52:52.943-06:00Obama may have been a &#39;senior lecturer&#39; at...Obama may have been a &#39;senior lecturer&#39; at the University of Chicago Law School but he is by no means a &#39;constitutional scholar&#39; as some have made him out to be.<br /><br />He taught a Voting Rights class about the disenfranchisement of blacks and districting of same; and a class on Due Process and Equal Protection as it pertains to blacks and racism. You can look up his past exams online, and his sample answers. (They seem pretty childishly simple to me, and I&#39;m not even in the legal profession.)<br /><br />Simply put, he taught racism law, history of racism law, and how to use racism law. That&#39;s it, that&#39;s all.luaghahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17771831351721057474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-16631892372766532062010-01-23T07:34:24.472-06:002010-01-23T07:34:24.472-06:00Ritmo: assertion is not argument--and you continu...Ritmo: assertion is not argument--and you continue to make some egregious assertions. But do carry on.Roger J.http://www.blogger.com/profile/12639676792043324100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-72454172390242850722010-01-23T06:07:32.634-06:002010-01-23T06:07:32.634-06:00&quot;Why would a law professor oppose a Supreme C...&quot;Why would a law professor oppose a Supreme Court decision ...and not respect the authority of the Court and honor ...separation of powers? &quot;<br /><br />Why would a Law Prof. run for the office of POTUS when he knows he is not an eligible Natural Born Citizen (his father was NEVER a US Citizen). AND why don&#39;t any of you supposed &quot;lawyers&quot; call him on it?Mickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02864660386925998491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-16204131098713445302010-01-23T00:20:08.722-06:002010-01-23T00:20:08.722-06:00So tell me Ritmo, what was the intent of the 1st A...So tell me Ritmo, what was the intent of the 1st Amendment created for? It wasn&#39;t for any generalized bit of free speech, but to protect political speech, but even that wasn&#39;t possible at the time. Do you know what the X, Y, Z affair is? You don&#39;t even understand the Consitution at all. When people say freedom isn&#39;t free, well, they are in essence correct considering that the Constitution doesn&#39;t enumerate rights, and even the Bill of Rights doesn&#39;t assure you in any way, shape or form said rights. Unless of course you think those rights stem from your precious love of government. You are a piss poor representative of your ideological ilk. Oh, that&#39;s right you claim not what your ideology is, but instead smear it around for all of us to smell. Pretended to be a crass, sarcastic, little prick as a way to conflate and project what you think you know to the rest of us. You are not the ID of Althouse.Methadrashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07828014989470539375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-59921908683177139552010-01-22T22:57:36.861-06:002010-01-22T22:57:36.861-06:00Isn&#39;t this conceding the point that the Suprem...Isn&#39;t this conceding the point that the Supreme Court has the final say on all things Constitutional? Are we to assume that the President and Congress can violate the Constitution, but the Supreme Court can&#39;t? <br /><br />I was livid when Bush signed McCain-Feingold even after he&#39;d previously said it was unconstitutional. The President (and members of Congress) all take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. They should not be ceding that duty to the Supreme Court, and they can and should speak up when the Court oversteps their bounds.<br /><br />(That being said, I don&#39;t think the Court DID overstep in this case; in fact, I&#39;m saddened that the case was still as close as it was. I think Obama is dead-wrong in this case. But I don&#39;t think the President, especially a Constitutional Law lecturer, should sit idly by when they think the Court has violated the Constitution.)exfloridianhttp://openid.aol.com/exfloridiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-56266862663586189122010-01-22T22:32:03.770-06:002010-01-22T22:32:03.770-06:00Ritmo Brasileiro said: &quot;Corporations can have...Ritmo Brasileiro said: &quot;Corporations can have some rights. However, they are not entitled to the protections of the Constitution.&quot;<br /><br />Corporations aren&#39;t entitled to the right of due process of law? Corporations aren&#39;t protected by the takings clause? Newspaper corporations aren&#39;t protected by the First Amendment? <br /><br />From what comic book did you learn constitutional law?Peanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10300220285833876977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-22397285458620680572010-01-22T22:06:29.892-06:002010-01-22T22:06:29.892-06:00But those rights apply to people, not to corporati...<i>But those rights apply to people, not to corporations.</i><br /><br />Where does the constitution say that? Nowhere.<br /><br />Companies existed at the time the constitution was written. Early forms of corporations existed. Yet the founding fathers saw fit to not exclude them specifically from the protections of the Constitution and for good reason. Corporations are collections of people; they aren&#39;t just some anonymous thing that exists outside human existence. <br /><br />Even more bizarre, if corporations aren&#39;t protected by the constitution, then the government wouldn&#39;t need warrants to search the premises of any corporation or company. (Also curious that if corporations aren&#39;t protected by the constitution, does the commerce clause only apply to individuals?)<br /><br />&quot;Congress shall make no law...&quot; <br /><br />You have to be pretty fucking stupid to not understand that.Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04450897654318345683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-74829800362310700862010-01-22T21:05:23.632-06:002010-01-22T21:05:23.632-06:00&quot;I love Maguro&#39;s bullshit presumption tha...&quot;<i>I love Maguro&#39;s bullshit presumption that the First Amendment was created not to give people a right to their voice, but to mollify it with the voices of non-humans.</i>&quot;<br /><br /><br />Oh, I forgot. The First Amendment says nothing at all about the non-human entity &quot;the press.&quot;Synovahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-91323429074211460012010-01-22T21:02:49.076-06:002010-01-22T21:02:49.076-06:00&quot;Yes. By all means let&#39;s make this a deba...&quot;<i>Yes. By all means let&#39;s make this a debate about the principle of the thing and not about your interest in perpetuating the idea of minority rule.</i>&quot;<br /><br /><br />For some people it is most certainly the principle of the thing. Perhaps that is something you simply can&#39;t get your head around. Liberty for the sake of it. Freedom for the sake of it.<br /><br />You can pretend that those who are saying that they think that freedom of speech is important enough to be number one in the bill of rights just want to keep the ability for minority rule (otherwise known as protection of individuals from majority whim and tyranny).<br /><br />And you can continue to pretend that you care about the *source* of the speech and not the content.<br /><br />I don&#39;t know that you actually need other participants for either of those fantasies, however. So carry on!Synovahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-64020977488842149912010-01-22T20:28:14.711-06:002010-01-22T20:28:14.711-06:00Better Question: Why would a LAW PROFESSOR suggest...Better Question: Why would a LAW PROFESSOR suggest that another LAW PROFESSOR&#39;s criticsm of a Supreme Court decision on a matter of constitutional law reflected inappropriate respect for the authority of the Court and insufficient honor of our system of separation of powers? <br /><br />In fact, what role do law professors play in the separation of powers? I must have skipped that article.<br /><br />Or...<br /><br />Why would a LAW PROFESSOR suggest that criticism by one branch of another branch implicated anything in terms of separation of powers? And since when does criticism of any judicial decision reflect a lack of respect for that body&#39;s authority?Cut Ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00939147642711361916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-60654448485315536292010-01-22T19:48:46.415-06:002010-01-22T19:48:46.415-06:00They can speak all they want. But as &quot;they&qu...They can speak all they want. But as &quot;they&quot; have no vote, &quot;they&quot; have no argument for a compelling right to influence an election.<br /><br />I keep referring to natural rights and artificial entities. And you keep not getting it. Does a corporation get charged with breaking laws? If the board of a corporation conspired to kill someone can the state charge that entity, and let the individuals off the hook? Of course not.<br /><br />Corporations are not people and do not have, and <i>never will have</i> the same rights as people. No matter how many examples you can conjure up to argue otherwise, I can quash every one of them.<br /><br />Ultimately, your position is wrong.<br /><br />Corporations can have some rights. However, they are not entitled to the protections of the Constitution.Ritmo Brasileirohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15912086218531198114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-675625390168227892010-01-22T19:47:06.651-06:002010-01-22T19:47:06.651-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ritmo Brasileirohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15912086218531198114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-34069812715756930292010-01-22T19:40:03.775-06:002010-01-22T19:40:03.775-06:00Oh, so no one has any free speech rights except th...Oh, so no one has any free speech rights except the guy standing on a street corner all by himself? <br /><br />The UAW, Warner Bros Studios, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, none of these organizations has a right to free speech? <br /><br />As Spock might say...fascinating.Magurohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10174899673368042634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-44399006736715426682010-01-22T19:38:14.277-06:002010-01-22T19:38:14.277-06:00Anyway, no offense, but I&#39;m on the move myself...Anyway, no offense, but I&#39;m on the move myself tonight. Take your time to think of some respectable, cognitively meaningful rebuttals. Go on. Take all night, if you need it. Or all year.Ritmo Brasileirohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15912086218531198114noreply@blogger.com